• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How To Fight the Russians in a City

Onion Eater

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
753
Reaction score
139
Location
Scottsdale, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
“Our tactic in Grozny was to fire at the enemy everywhere without being seen anywhere. The Russians did not know where and who the enemy was. We shot, destroyed, withdrew, went home to sleep, returned to start military actions again. No organization or planning. We were independent hunters.” – Aslan Maskhadov

“We will come at them from all sides, shooting them like partridges.” – Ayub Khansultanov


Outline of Sniper Tactics

A. Timing. Psychologically, soldiers are weakest immediately after a win.

1. When soldiers are fleeing, you can kill them as fast as you can fire.
2. Victorious soldiers are focused only on raping, looting and sleeping.
3. Let invaders pass by, then attack them from behind after the battle.

B. Position. Select neither a panoramic view nor a tiny loophole.

1. Positions with a wide view are easily identified and targeted early.
2. Positions with a wide view are elevated and thus easily encircled.
3. If you are too hidden, nobody will walk in front of your loophole.
4. If it is hard for the invaders to find you, it is hard for you to scram.
5. There are many semi-concealed hides; quantity makes them obscure.

C. Elevation. Stay in the basement or first floor of most buildings.

1. No Russian vehicle can depress its main gun below -6°.
2. If the ground is frozen, basements will protect one from artillery.
3. The roof and top floors of buildings will be destroyed by artillery.
4. Avoid skyscrapers; they are easily encircled and have solid windows.
5. Apartments and hotels are wider and have windows and balconies.
6. Only go into upper stories if all the nearby buildings are multi-story.

D. Teamwork. Most of the advantages of teams apply only to the invaders.

1. Crew-served weapons reduce willful misses by reluctant killers.
2. In static positions (e.g. on a skyscraper) teams have more endurance.
3. Rifles fire sideways and binoculars look forward; it is hard to do both.
4. Two men and a rifle do not fit on a motorcycle, but cars are too slow.
5. For the defenders, mobility is all-important and teams are a hindrance.

E. Move. The moment you stop moving is the moment you stop moving.

1. If at all possible, do not get out of your getaway vehicle.
2. Keep a warren of streets behind you. Fire over obstacles like canals.
3. Never climb high into narrow buildings that can be easily encircled.
4. In wide apartments and hotels, mouse-hole between interior rooms.

F. Hug. Move alongside a column of troops 300 to 500 yards from them.

1. Inside 200 yards you are vulnerable to machineguns and RPGs.
2. Outside 600 yards you are vulnerable to artillery and air strikes.
3. Stay in the safety zone; fire when there is an obstacle to shoot over.

G. Surprise. Fire when the invaders are distracted or not expecting a shot.

1. Invader’s attacks on buildings are initiated with flash-bang grenades.
2. Barrels of ANFO are ineffective weapons but are useful diversions.
3. Never fake randomness. Choose among your options by rolling dice.

H. Illuminate. The battlefield is defined by who can see whom and when.

1. Do not use a light yourself. You see glare and the invaders see you.
2. From 90° away have a helper clamp a light down, turn it on and run.
3. Radar can see mortar shells. Do not use them to launch flares.
4. Deploy flares with small, remote-control rockets.

I. Divide. Engage the invaders when they are crossing a boundary.

1. Fire when half the invaders are inside a building and half outside it.
2. Fire when half the invaders are in open and half in rough terrain.
3. Fire at dawn or dusk when neither infrared nor visible light is optimal.

J. Pin. Your first shot pins the invaders down. Follow-up shots kill them.

1. Aim to break a soldier’s pelvis. He cannot run and must be carried.
a. The center of mass (hips, not heart) moves around the least.
b. A .308 at 500 yards will not penetrate the armor over the heart.
c. If cutting the femoral artery does not kill him, just shoot him again.
2. Induce the invaders to hide behind non-bulletproof objects like trees.
a. They will run if engaged in the open and you will only get one shot.
b. They will hide if engaged near trees. Just shoot through each tree.

K. Escape. Trap your pursuers in an apartment complex or cul-de-sac.

1. Park your motorcycle in the living room and fire off the kitchen table.
2. Drive your motorcycle away through narrow pedestrian walkways.
3. Have a helper chain the gates shut to lock the pursuit vehicles in.
4. Change vehicles under overhead cover to lose any airborne pursuit.
5. Anti-tank missiles will not recognize a motorcycle and will fly past it.


Disclaimer: This thread is for academic study only. Neither I nor the forum moderators advocate violence against anybody.
 
Problem > solution. The Russians simply leveled the city.
 
Problem > solution. The Russians simply leveled the city.

That didn't work so well for the Germans when they tried to level Russian cities.

Russian buildings fell into their own foot print, leaving most broadways clear, and their reinforced concrete structures dissipated the blast of subsequent bombings.

Russians had superior uniforms and were able to stay warmer. Their rifles could be zeroed by hand in about 3 shots while the Germans had to use a tool and about 5 shots.

And that's saying nothing for the preexisting gun/sniper culture which elevated sharpshooters, of which many of the most calibrated were women, while the Germans typically looked down on snipers.

Russians just kicked ass.
 
Last edited:
Russians just kicked ass.
Indeed. And the Chechens are not the Russians.

The Russians basically leveled Grozny. Infantry patroled the ruins in tandem with tanks. Anyone remaining in the city was considered a hostile and dealt with severely. The Russians also employed Kontrakniki. These are Russian military vets (mercenaries and all alcoholics) who sign a three year contract. They are outfitted and supplied by the Russian military, yet they answer to no one. They sometimes man checkpoints, but their main forte is sweep and destroy missions. God help you if your bribe stash is deemed insufficient.
 
Thanks. I'll keep this in mind if I ever want to fight Russians in a city.
 
Is there suddenly the need to fight the Russians?

Paul
 
The initial success in Grozny came from the utterly miserable tactics used by the Russians. The Chechnyians were quite skilled and used good tactics, but the primary factor of their success was in Russian mistakes. Unsupported armor in dense urban areas is bad enough, untrained crews just made it worse.
 
Is there suddenly the need to fight the Russians?
...in a city

When you're caught in some city somewhere with a sniper rifle and the Russians are invading you'll wish that you'd paid better attention.

Seriously man.

Seriously.
 
...in a city

When you're caught in some city somewhere with a sniper rifle and the Russians are invading you'll wish that you'd paid better attention.

Seriously man.

Seriously.

Yeah...Russians are masters of urban combat...I would like to say the US Army could learn a thing or two from their history...but their history in Chechnya isn't that good...the only foolproof way of beating Russians in a city, and in the best of conditions, is to simply nuke the city. Of course, practically, that would never work, as a nuclear detonation is always a lose-lose scenario.....
 
...in a city

When you're caught in some city somewhere with a sniper rifle and the Russians are invading you'll wish that you'd paid better attention.

Seriously man.

Seriously.

Seriously... your advice would be of no use. I payed attention to my all arms instructors. Are you a fantasist?

Paul
 
Seriously... your advice would be of no use. I payed attention to my all arms instructors. Are you a fantasist?

Paul

This is a hypothetical situation, in which the main defending force has been incapacitated, and only a handful of snipers are left. Of course, the main defense force could be the snipers themselves...as a delaying force, to buy time for a counterattack or something...
 
1) Consume all fossil fuels, thus eliminating Russian winters
2) Consume all vodka
3) Conduct psychological warfare via streaming transmission of Rocky IV to all russian televisions
4) ???
5) Profit
 
Indeed. And the Chechens are not the Russians.

The Russians basically leveled Grozny. Infantry patroled the ruins in tandem with tanks. Anyone remaining in the city was considered a hostile and dealt with severely. The Russians also employed Kontrakniki. These are Russian military vets (mercenaries and all alcoholics) who sign a three year contract. They are outfitted and supplied by the Russian military, yet they answer to no one. They sometimes man checkpoints, but their main forte is sweep and destroy missions. God help you if your bribe stash is deemed insufficient.

Tashah, you rule.
 
I would rather learn "How and Where To Drink With A Russian in a City" :2razz:
 
Russians....Piss poor discipline, Terrible habits, Drink alot, Tough as nails. The only thing worse then fighting a russian soldier is fighting a native american.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? That sounds like a line out of an old war movie. What are you correlating here?
 
Problem > solution. The Russians simply leveled the city.

Not to belitle the achievment of a guerilla force holding up a military super power on its own doorstep for a decade. Lets not pretend the tactics arent effective.
 
Not to belitle the achievment of a guerilla force holding up a military super power on its own doorstep for a decade. Lets not pretend the tactics arent effective.

Effective, but effective at what? Simply killing Russians? Drawing the conflict out? Getting their city completely razed?

Effective is a relative term.

A tactic can be effective, but that doesn't mean it's actually successful. I'm asking only because I'd like to know if you're just speaking in general or does your argument go deeper in this specific situation?
 
Russians....Piss poor discipline, Terrible habits, Drink alot, Tough as nails. The only thing worse then fighting a russian soldier is fighting a native american.




:lol:


LOLWUT-Russian.jpg
 
Effective, but effective at what? Simply killing Russians? Drawing the conflict out? Getting their city completely razed?

Effective is a relative term.

A tactic can be effective, but that doesn't mean it's actually successful. I'm asking only because I'd like to know if you're just speaking in general or does your argument go deeper in this specific situation?

Helmuth von Moltke the Younger is a prime example of where effective in battle was the thinking, rather than effective in meeting the political overall goals and their relation to the battle. The line was "so what happens after?" To which Moltke replies more or less "We'll figure it out later." Guess who lost WWI? Marne Campaign I believe.

Effective does not mean much unless there is an over arching goal.
 
If you are going to fight Russians in an American city then just spray paint all the freeway signs in your county. They will never get there.
 
If you are going to fight Russians in an American city then just spray paint all the freeway signs in your county. They will never get there.

Unless by sheer chance, or luck. That might actually work, because they might go backwards, and kill their own men.
 
It means the only two fist fights I've ever lost were a Russian and a Big Native American.

So in other words your comments were made more out of bravado and very limited personal experience than as a general characterization. Because that's what it came across as. I think it's possible that their ethnic background had little to do with it as I've met many Russians and have a large number of native American relatives who simply don't fit your description.

How about the Thai? Or maybe an Aussie? I hear they're pretty tough.
 
Effective, but effective at what? Simply killing Russians? Drawing the conflict out? Getting their city completely razed?

Effective is a relative term.

A tactic can be effective, but that doesn't mean it's actually successful. I'm asking only because I'd like to know if you're just speaking in general or does your argument go deeper in this specific situation?

Effective in the sense that their strategies would seem extremely situationaly useful to various military contexts.
When someone takes this long to lose to a superpower, I take their tactics seriously.
Im not saying this means I think their strategy was overall correct. Thats a broader question. But in terms of running the strategy theyve run (protracted armed resistance), theyre relatively (to what most would use) effective tactics.
 
Back
Top Bottom